Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act, 2002 defines “Burden of Proof,” which places the onus on the accused to prove that the proceeds of the crime are untainted property.
Related: What Is the Burden of Proof Under the Indian Evidence Act?
What Is the Burden of Proof Under Section 24 of the PMLA?
Under section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, there is a provision regarding the burden of proof. In the case of a person accused of the offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 of the PMLA, the authority or the court is required to presume that the proceeds of crime involved are indeed engaged in money laundering. For other individuals, the authority or the court has the discretion to assume that the proceeds of crime are being used for the purpose of committing money laundering.
Recent Case Laws
You can get more context about the burden of proof from these case laws.
Union of India vs Hassan Ali Khan, 2011 AIR SCW 6592
The allegations that the money was the product of a crime and that the accused attempted to portray it as clean money by depositing it in his bank accounts may not ultimately be proven, but because the allegations or claims were made, the onus of proving that the money was not the product of a crime and therefore was not tainted shifted to the accused under section 24 of the Act.
Jignesh Kishorebhai Bhajiawala vs State of Gujarat, 2017 (4) Gujarat LR 3462
The onus of proof falls on the accused to establish that the sum recovered or involved does not constitute “proceeds of crime” as defined by the Act. He must also convince the authority of this.
Aman Krishanlal S. S/o. Shri Krishan Lal S. vs Assistant Director, (Gujarat), 2015 (4) Crimes 295
Section 24 reference to the burden of proof applies to the proceeds of crime.
Smt. Janata Jha vs Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, 2014 Cri LJ 2556
A case in which the accused has been acquitted in a sessions trial on charges related to sections 307, 353, and 357 of the Indian Penal Code but faces a subsequent proceeding under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, involving different procedures and evidentiary standards, cannot be deemed a case of double jeopardy.
Hasan Ali Khan vs Union of India, 2012 (1) Bom C R (Cri) 807
According to section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, it is the defendant’s responsibility to demonstrate that the claimed proceeds of crime are legitimate assets. It should be clear that this section does not absolve the prosecution of the duty to claim specifically that the funds allegedly being laundered were obtained via the commission of a specified scheduled offence or offences under the PMLA. This clause cannot be interpreted as requiring the accused to establish his right to the money in question once the prosecution only alleged that he was engaging in money laundering.
B Rama Raju vs Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, represented by its Secretary [Revenue] New Delhi, 2011 (3) ALT 443
The legislative goals are only realized when the onus is placed on the accused to prove that the proceeds of crime are untainted property, as camouflage and deceit are tactics inherent and integral to money laundering operations and may involve subsequent transactions relating to proceeds of crime and intent to project the layered proceeds as untainted property. Section 24 of the PMLA was written with this legislative goal and justification.
To sum up: The burden of proof under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002 lies upon the accused person to prove that the proceeds of the crime are not tainted property.
- What Is the Burden of Proof Under the PMLA? - 18th April 2024
- Ranjit D Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra – Case Explained - 11th April 2024
- What Is Proceeds of Crime Under PMLA (With Case Laws) - 7th April 2024
